Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Scheller v. Health Care Service Corp.

    138 Ill. App. 3d 219 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 27 times
    Rejecting constructive discharge concept

    Nor does the complaint allege that the employer took retaliatory actions because of plaintiff's failure to perform those instructions and demands that were set out in the complaint. In Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 443 N.E.2d 1069, it was alleged that the defendant discharged the plaintiff because he was unable to physically perform certain of the duties that had been assigned to him. The court in Cuerton stated:

  2. Beraha v. Baxter Health Care Corp.

    956 F.2d 1436 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 366 times
    Holding that a medical device marketer had contractual discretion in developing and marketing the plaintiff's device under an exclusive license agreement even though the device's profitability would also depend on design feasibility and market demand

    On the other hand, Illinois courts have consistently held that "[p]arties to an employment at-will contract may terminate it for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, . . . ." Id. 23 Ill.Dec. at 459, 384 N.E.2d at 95 (citations omitted); Zewde v. Elgin Community College, 601 F. Supp. 1237, 1250 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (citing Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 111 Ill.App.3d 261, 66 Ill.Dec. 906, 910, 443 N.E.2d 1069, 1073 (1982)). These two principles may appear to conflict.

  3. Scott v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

    605 F. Supp. 1047 (N.D. Ill. 1985)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that despite EEOC filing, federal court lacks jurisdiction over IHRA claim, if there has been no filing with the IDHR

    Indeed, the more recent cases cited by Scott only serve to reconfirm Criscione's vitality. Dykstra v. Crestwood Bank, 117 Ill. App.3d 821, 826, 73 Ill.Dec. 307, 311, 454 N.E.2d 51, 55 (1st Dist. 1983); Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 66 Ill.Dec. 906, 909-910, 443 N.E.2d 1069, 1072-74 (2d Dist. 1982). Count II thus fails to state a claim under Illinois law.

  4. Zewde v. Elgin Community College

    601 F. Supp. 1237 (N.D. Ill. 1984)   Cited 27 times
    In Zewde, we held that where a set of facts gives rise to a Title VII claim and to a claim based on independent constitutional grounds, a plaintiff may allege alternative claims under Title VII and § 1983. 601 F. Supp. at 1245.

    Nevertheless, Illinois courts have consistently ruled that the parties to an employment at-will contract may terminate it for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. See, e.g., Cuerton v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc., 111 Ill.App.3d 261, 263, 66 Ill.Dec. 906, 910, 443 N.E.2d 1069, 1073 (1982); Criscione, 66 Ill.App.3d at 669-70, 23 Ill.Dec. at 460, 384 N.E.2d at 95. At first glance, these two principles seem to clash, but Judge Hart has suggested a reconciliation which, we believe, is consistent with how an Illinois court would approach the problem.

  5. Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum

    159 Ill. 2d 469 (Ill. 1994)   Cited 381 times
    Finding that the failure to specifically label a motion is not fatal unless prejudice results to the nonmovant

    That rule has been held to be excepted where the issue on appeal is whether a particular theory was raised by the factual allegations in the complaint. (See Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 265 (deciding sufficiency of a complaint in the context of a section 2-615 motion to dismiss); Krautstrunk, 95 Ill. App.3d at 534-35 (same).) Based on these principles, we must determine whether sufficient facts are stated in plaintiffs' complaint which, if established, would entitle them to relief additional to that alleged under section 19(g).

  6. Madonna v. Giacobbe

    546 N.E.2d 1145 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 21 times

    Giacobbe and Woodside never sought leave to amend their fourth amended counterclaim in the trial court and have therefore waived this issue for purposes of review. Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 267; Criscione v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1978), 66 Ill. App.3d 664, 670. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.

  7. Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    189 Ill. App. 3d 980 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that contract did not incorporate provisions of employee manual where contract contained no language indicating that contract was "subject to" provisions of manual

    Implicit in every express contract in Illinois is the promise that the parties will act in good faith. ( Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 443 N.E.2d 1069; Stevenson v. ITT Harper, Inc. (1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 568, 366 N.E.2d 561.) There is apparently a divergence of opinion in the appellate districts as to whether the duty creates or could create an action for breach of contract in an at-will employment setting. In Powers v. Delnor Hospital (1985), 135 Ill. App.3d 317, 321-22, 481 N.E.2d 968, 972, Hugo v. Tomaszewski (1987), 155 Ill. App.3d 906, 911, 508 N.E.2d 1139, 1142, and Gordon v. Matthew Bender Co. (N.D. Ill. 1983), 562 F. Supp. 1286, 1289-90, the Second and Fifth District Appellate Courts and the Federal District Court held that the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not create an independent action for breach of contract in the employment at-will setting.

  8. Johnson v. Lincoln Christian College

    150 Ill. App. 3d 733 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that a student who allegedly completed all the requirements for a diploma but had not been given a diploma stated a cause of action for breach of an implied contract

    • 13 As defendants point out, the general rule is that if a party appeals the dismissal of his complaint without presenting an amended complaint to the trial court, he waives his right to later amend his complaint. ( Mlade v. Finley (1983), 112 Ill. App.3d 914, 445 N.E.2d 1240; Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 443 N.E.2d 1069.) However, as Johnson points out:

  9. Pratt v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

    149 Ill. App. 3d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that FCPA did not implicate a sufficient Ohio policy interest to support an Ohio retaliatory discharge claim

    • 1 It is settled law in Illinois that an employee at will may be terminated by his employer at any time for any reason or none at all. ( Martin v. Federal Life Insurance Co. (1982), 109 Ill. App.3d 596, 440 N.E.2d 998; Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 443 N.E.2d 1069; Criscione v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1978), 66 Ill. App.3d 664, 384 N.E.2d 91.) A narrow exception to the "employment at will" doctrine has been established in those cases wherein an employee can demonstrate that he was terminated in retaliation for his actions, if his termination contravenes the public policy of this State. This common law tort of retaliatory discharge was first recognized in Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill.2d 172, 384 N.E.2d 353. In Kelsay, our supreme court held that the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim was tortious and that an employee so harmed could bring suit for retaliatory discharge in an exception to the "employment at will" doctrine.

  10. Powers v. Delnor Hospital

    481 N.E.2d 968 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 22 times
    In Powers v. Delnor Hospital (1985), 135 Ill. App.3d 317, 321-22, 481 N.E.2d 968, 972, Hugo v. Tomaszewski (1987), 155 Ill. App.3d 906, 911, 508 N.E.2d 1139, 1142, and Gordon v. Matthew Bender Co. (N.D. Ill. 1983), 562 F. Supp. 1286, 1289-90, the Second and Fifth District Appellate Courts and the Federal District Court held that the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not create an independent action for breach of contract in the employment at-will setting.

    First, the contractual obligation not to lie about the reasons for termination would have to be derived from the duty of good faith and fair dealing included in every contract as a matter of law. (See Cuerton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 261, 263, 443 N.E.2d 1069, 1071.) However, the duty of good faith and fair dealing which the law implies does not create an independent cause of action ( Gordon v. Matthew Bender Co. (N.D. Ill. 1983), 562 F. Supp. 1286, 1289-90), and certainly cannot be interpreted to limit the right to terminate an at-will employment contract.